English feudal barony

King John signs Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215, surrounded by his baronage. Illustration from Cassell's History of England, 1902.

In the kingdom of England, a feudal barony or barony by tenure was the highest degree of feudal land tenure, namely per baroniam (Latin for "by barony ") under which the land-holder owed the service of being one of the king's barons. The duties owed by and the privileges granted to feudal barons cannot now be defined exactly, but they involved the duty of providing soldiers to the royal feudal army on demand by the king, and the privilege of attendance at the king's feudal court, the precursor of parliament.

If the estate-in-land held by barony contained a significant castle as its caput and if it was especially large – consisting of more than about 20 knight's fees (each loosely equivalent to a manor) – then it was termed an "honour".

This type of barony must be distinguished from a barony, also feudal, which existed within a county palatine, such as the barony of Halton within the Palatinate of Chester.[1]


William the Conqueror established his favoured followers as barons by enfeoffing them as tenants-in-chief with great fiefdoms to be held per baroniam, a largely standard feudal contract of tenure, common to all his barons. Such barons were not necessarily always from the greater Norman nobles, but were selected often on account of their personal abilities and usefulness. Thus for example Turstin FitzRolf, the relatively humble and obscure knight who had stepped in at the last minute to accept the position of Duke William's standard-bearer at the Battle of Hastings, was granted a barony which comprised well over twenty manors.[2]

Lands forming a barony were often located in several different counties, not necessarily adjoining. The name of such a barony is generally deemed to be the name of the chief manor within it, known as the Caput, Latin for "head", generally assumed to have been the seat or chief residence of the first baron. So, for instance, the barony of Turstin FitzRolf became known as the barony of North Cadbury, Somerset.[2]

The exact date of creation of most feudal baronies cannot be determined, as their founding charters have been lost. Many of them are first recorded in the Domesday Book survey of 1086.

Servitium debitum

The feudal obligation imposed by the grant of a barony was termed in Latin the servitium debitum or "service owed" and was set as a quota of knights to be provided for the king's service. It bore no constant relation to the amount of land comprised by the barony, but was fixed by a bargain between the king and the baron.[3]

It was at the discretion of the baron as to how these knights were found. The commonest method was for him to split his barony into several fiefs of between a few hundred acres possibly up to a thousand acres each, into each of which he would sub-enfeoff one knight, by the tenure of knight-service. This tenure gave the knight use of the fief and all its revenues, on condition that he should provide to the baron, now his overlord, 40 days of military service, complete with retinue of esquires, horses and armour. The fief so allotted is known as a knight's fee. Alternatively the baron could keep the entire barony, or a part of it, in demesne, that is to say "in-hand" or under his own management, using the revenues it produced to buy the services of mercenary knights known as "stipendiary knights". A barony which could support more than the number of knights required by the servitium debitum had clearly been obtained from the king on favourable terms.

Under- and over- enfeoffment

Where a baron had sub-enfeoffed fewer knights than required by the servitium debitum, the barony was said to be "under-enfeoffed", and the balance of knights owing had to be produced super dominium, that is "on the demesne". This does not mean they were resident within the baron's demesne, but that they had to be hired with the revenue arising from it.

Conversely, a barony was "over-enfeoffed" where more knights had been enfeoffed than was required by the servitium debitum, and this indicated that the barony had been obtained on overly-favourable terms.

Cartae Baronum

The Cartae Baronum ("Charters of the Barons") was a survey commissioned by the Treasury in 1166. It required each baron[lower-alpha 1] to declare how many knights he had enfeoffed and how many were super dominium, with the names of all. It appears that the survey was designed to identify baronies from which a greater servitium debitum could in future be obtained by the king. An example is given from the return of Lambert of Etocquigny:[4]

To his reverend lord, Henry, king of the English, Lambert of Etocquigny, greeting. Know that I hold from you by your favour 16 carucates of land and 2 bovates by the service of 10 knights. In these 10 carucates of land I have 5 knights enfeoffed by the old enfeoffment:

  • Richard de Haia holds 1 knight's fee; and he withheld the service which he owes to you and to me from the day of your coronation up to now, except that he paid me 2 marks.
  • Odo de Cranesbi holds 1 knight's fee.
  • Thomas, son of William, holds 1 knight's fee.
  • Roger de Millers holds 2 knight's fees.

And from my demesne I provide the balance of the service I owe you, to wit, that of 5 knights. And from that demesne I have given Robert de Portemort 3/4 of 1 knight's fee. Therefore I pray you that you will send me your judgement concerning Richard de Haia who holds back the service of his fee, because I cannot obtain that service except by your order. This is the total service in the aforesaid 16 carucates of land. Farewell.

Summons to parliament

The privilege which balanced the burden of the servitium debitum was the baron's right to attend the king's council. Originally all barons who held per baroniam received individual writs of summons to attend parliament. This was a practical measure because the early kings almost continually travelled around the kingdom, taking their court (i.e. administration) with them.

A king only called a parliament, or council, when the need arose either for advice or funding. This lack of a parliamentary schedule meant that the barons needed to be informed when and where to attend. As baronies became fragmented over time due to failure of male heirs and descent via co-heiresses (see below), many of those who held per baroniam became holders of relatively small fiefdoms. Eventually the king refused to summon such minor nobles to parliament by personal writ, sending instead a general writ of summons to the sheriff of each shire, who was to summon only representatives of these so-called lesser-barons. The greater barons, who retained sufficient power to insist upon it, continued to receive personal summonses. The king came to realise, from the complacency of the lesser barons with this new procedure, that in practice it was not tenure per baroniam which determined attendance at parliament, but receipt of a writ of summons originated by himself.

The next logical development was that the king started issuing writs to persons who did not hold per baroniam and who were not therefore feudal barons, but "barons by writ". The reason for summoning by writ was based on personal characteristics, for example the man summoned might be one of exceptional judgement or have valuable military skills. The arbitrary summons by personal writ signalled the start of the decline of feudalism, eventually evolving into summons by public proclamation in the form of letters patent.

Deemed feudal barons

The higher prelates such as archbishops and bishops were deemed to hold per baroniam, and were thus members of the baronage entitled to attend parliament, indeed they formed the greatest grouping of all. Marcher lords in Wales often held their lordships by right of conquest and appear to have been deemed feudal barons. The Barons of the Cinque Ports were also deemed feudal barons by virtue of their military service at sea,[5] and were thus entitled to attend parliament.

Baronial relief

Baronial relief was payable by an heir so that he might lawfully take possession of his inheritance.[6] It was a form of one-off taxation, or more accurately a variety of "feudal incident", levyable by the King on his tenants-in-chief for a variety of reasons. A prospective heir to a barony generally paid £100 in baronial relief for his inheritance.[6] The term "relief" implies "elevation", both words being derived from the Latin levo, to raise up, into a position of honour.

Where a barony was split into two, for example on the death of a baron leaving two co-heiresses, each daughter's husband would become a baron in respect of his moiety (mediaeval French for "half"), paying half of the full baronial relief. A tenant-in-chief could be the lord of fractions of several different baronies, if he or his ancestors had married co-heiresses. The tenure of even the smallest fraction of a barony conferred baronial status on the lord of these lands.[6] This natural fragmentation of the baronies led to great difficulties within the royal administration as the king relied on an ever increasing number of men responsible for supplying soldiers for the royal army, and the records of who these fractional barons were became more complex and unreliable. The early English jurist Henry de Bracton (died 1268) was one of the first writers to examine the concept of the feudal barony.

Abolition and surviving vestiges

The power of the feudal barons to control their landholding was considerably weakened in 1290 by the statute of Quia Emptores. This prohibited land from being the subject of a feudal grant, and allowed its transfer without the feudal lord's permission.

Feudal baronies became perhaps obsolete (but not extinct) on the abolition of feudal tenure during the Civil War, as confirmed by the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 passed under the Restoration which took away Knights service and other legal rights. Many cite the abolition act of 1660 as a contradictory item, but the previous stated judgment makes it clear: "The rest ceased to exist as feudal baronies by tenure, becoming baronies in free socage, that is to say under a "free" (hereditable) contract requiring payment of monetary rents." The law is silent on this but taking the judgment at face value states they exist still as "free socage". They are considered incorporeal hereditaments or non-physical property. In addition today, many people own the legal rights to feudal baronies passed down through male and female lines alike via free bench clauses within some baronies documentation and deeds.

Under the Tenures Abolition Act 1660, many baronies by tenure were converted into baronies by writ. The rest ceased to exist as feudal baronies by tenure, becoming baronies in free socage, that is to say under a "free" (hereditable) contract requiring payment of monetary rents. Thus baronies could no longer be held by military service. Parliamentary titles of honour had been limited since the 15th century by the Modus Tenenda Parliamenta act, and could thenceforth only be created by writ of summons or letters patent.

Tenure by knight-service was abolished and discharged and the lands covered by such tenures, including once-feudal baronies, were henceforth held by socage (i.e. in exchange for monetary rents). The English Fitzwalter Case in 1670 ruled that barony by tenure had been discontinued for many years and any claims to a peerage on such basis, meaning a right to sit in the House of Lords, were not to be revived, nor any right of succession based on them. In the Berkeley Case in 1861, an attempt was made to claim a seat in the House of Lords by right of a barony by tenure, but the House of Lords ruled that whatever might have been the case in the past, baronies by tenure no longer existed, meaning that a barony could not be held "by tenure", and confirmed the Tenures Abolition Act 1660. Three Redesdale Committee Reports in the early 19th century reached the same conclusion. There has been at least one legal opinion which asserts the continuing legal existence of the feudal barony in England and Wales, namely that from 1996 of A W & C Barsby, Barristers of Grays's Inn.[7]

Geographical survivals

Survivals of feudal baronies, in their geographical form, are the Barony of Westmorland, the Barony of Kendal, the Barony of Arundel and the Barony of Abergavenny.[8] These terms now describe areas of the modern county of Westmorland, in the same way that the word "county" itself has lost its feudal meaning of a land area under the control of a count or earl.

Lists of English feudal baronies

Ivor J. Sanders searched the archives, for example Exchequer documents such as fine rolls and pipe rolls, for entries recording the payment of baronial relief and published his results in English Baronies, a Study of their Origin and Descent 1086–1327 (Oxford, 1960). He identified 132 certain baronies where evidence was found of payment of baronial relief, and a further 72 which he termed "probable baronies" where the evidence was less clear. Where he could not identify a Caput Sanders named the barony after the name of the baron, for example the "Barony of Miles of Gloucester". The following lists include all of Sanders' certain and probable baronies.

Certain baronies

Name of baronyCounty of caputFirst known tenantEarliest record
AldingtonKent William FitzHelte 1073
ArundelSussex Roger de Montgomery pre 1087
AshbyLincolnshire Gilbert de Neville1162
AshfieldSuffolk Robert Blund 1086
AveleyEssex John FitzWaleran 1086
BamptonDevon Walter de Douai 1086
Biset Manasser Biset (d.1177) pre 1177
Gloucester (baronial court at Bristol[9])GloucestershireRobert FitzHamon(d.1107)pre 1107
Miles of Gloucester/BreconBreconMiles de Gloucester 1125
BasingHampshireHugh de Port1086
BeckleyOxfordshireRoger d'Ivry 1086
BedfordBedfordshireHugh de Beauchamp1086
BelvoirLeicestershireRobert de Todeni1086
BeningtonHertfordshirePeter I de Valoynes1086
BerkeleyGloucestershireRobert FitzHardingtempore H II, pre 1166
BerkhampsteadHertfordshireRobert, count of Mortain1086
BeverstoneGloucestershireRobert de Gurney1235
BlagdonSomersetSerlo de Burci1086
BlankneyLincolnshireWalter I de Aincourt 1086
BlythboroughSuffolkWilliam FitzWalter1157
BolhamNorthumberlandJames de Newcastle 1154
BolingbrokeLincolnshireIvo de Taillebois1086
BradninchDevonWilliam Capra1086
BulwickNorthamptonshireRichard FitzUrse1130
Burgh-by-SandsCumbriaRobert de Treverstempus H I(1100–1135)
Burstwick/"Holderness"[10]YorkshireDrogo de Brevere1086
BywellNorthumberlandGuy de Ballioltempus W II(1087–1100)
CainhoeBedfordshireNigel d'Aubigny1086
Castle CarySomersetWalter de Douai1086
Castle Combe[11]WiltshireHumphrey de Insula1086
Castle HolgateShropshire"Helgot"1086
CauseShropshireRoger FitzCorbet11th century
CavendishSuffolkRalph I de Limesy1086
CaxtonCambridgeshireHardwin de Scales1086
ChathamKentRobert le Latin (held under Odo Bp. of Bayeux)1086
ChesterCheshireGherbod the Fleming1070
Chipping WardenNorthamptonshireGuy de Reinbuedcurt1086
Chiselborough[lower-alpha 2]SomersetAlured "Pincerna"1086
ClareSuffolkRichard I FitzGilbertc. 1090
CliffordHerefordRalph de Tony1086
CoggesOxfordshire"Wadard" (held under Odo Bp. of Bayeux)1086
CottinghamYorkshireHugh FitzBaldric1086
CrickDerbyshireRalph FitzHubert1086I.J.Sanders Page 37 & 84.
Curry MaletSomersetRoger de Courcelles1086
Eaton BrayBedfordshireWilliam I de Cantilupe1205
Eaton SoconBedfordshireEudo Dapifer1086
EllinghamNorthumberlandNicholas de Grenvilletempus H I
EmbletonNorthumberlandJohn FitzOdardtempus H I
ErlestokeWiltshireRoger I de Mandevilletempus H I
Ewyas HaroldHerefordshireAlfred of Marlborough1086
EyeSuffolkRobert Malet1086
Field Dalling/St.HilaryNorfolkSt. Hilary1138
Flockthorpe in HardinghamNorfolkRalph de Camoys1236
FolkestoneKentWilliam de Arques (held under Odo Bp. of Bayeux)c. 1090
FolkinghamLincolnshireGilbert I de Ghent1086
FramlinghamSuffolkRoger I Bigod1086/tempus H I
FreistonLincolnshireGuy de Craon1086
Great BealingsSuffolkHervey de Bourges1086
Great TorringtonDevonOdo FitzGamelin1086
Great WeldonNorthamptonshireRobert de Buci1086
GreystokeCumberlandForne son of Sigulf1086
HanslopeBuckinghamshireWinemar the Fleming1086
Hatch Beauchamp[12]SomersetRobert FitzIvo (under Count of Mortain)1086
HeadingtonOxfordshireThomas Basset1203
HeadinghamEssexAubry I de Vere1086
HelmsleyYorkshireWalter Espectemp.H I
HockeringNorfolkRalph de Belfou1086
Holderness (see caput:Burstwick)
Hook NortonOxfordshireRobert d'Oilly1086
Hooton PagnellYorkshireRichard de Surdeval (under Count of Mortain) (part) Ralph Pagnell (under King) (part)1086
HunsingoreYorkshireErneis de Burun1086
KendalWestmorlandIvo de Tailleboistempus W II
KingtonHerefordshireAdam de Port c. 1121
KirklintonCumberlandAdam I de Boivill(?)post temp. H I
KnaresboroughYorkshireWilliam de Stutevillec. 1175
LauncestonCornwallDescent as Earl of Cornwall1086
LeicesterLeicestershireHugh de Grandmesnil1086
Long CrendonBuckinghamshireWalter I Giffard1086
MarshwoodDorsetGeoffrey I de Mandevilletemp. Henry I
MonmouthMonmouthshireWethenoc of Monmouthc. 1066
MorpethNorthumberlandWilliam I de Merlaytemp. Henry I
Much MarcleHerefordshireWilliam FitzBaderon1086
MulgraveYorkshireNigel Fossard1086
Nether StoweySomersetAlfred de Hispania1086
NoctonLincolnshireNorman I de Darcy1086
North CadburySomersetTurstin FitzRolf1086
OdellBedfordshireWalter le Fleming1086
OkehamptonDevonBaldwin FitzGilbert1086
Old BuckenhamNorfolkWilliam d'Aubigny Pincernatemp. Henry I
OswestryShropshireWarin the Bold (held from Roger of Montgomery)temp. William II
PleshyEssexGeoffrey I de Mandeville1086
PoorstockDorsetRoger I Arundel1086
PrudhoeNorthumberlandRobert I de Umfravilletemp. William I
PulverbatchShropshireRoger I Venator (held from Roger of Montgomery)1086
RedbourneLincolnshireJocelin FitzLambert1086
Richard's CastleHerefordshireOsbern I FitzScrob1086
SalwarpeWorcestershireUrse d'Abitot held from Roger of Montgomery)1086
ShelfordNottinghamshireGeoffrey de Alselin1086
SkeltonYorkshireRobert de Brustemp. Henry I
SkirpenbeckYorkshireOdo the Crossbowman1086
SnodhillHerefordshireHugh the Ass1086
SotbyLincolnshireWilliam I Kyme (held from Walden the Engineer)1086
SouthoeHuntingdonshireEustace Sheriff of Huntingdonshire1086
StaffordStaffordshireRobert I de Stafford1086
Stainton le ValeLincolnshireRalph de Crioltemp. Henry I
Stansted MountfitchetEssexRobert Gernon1086
StaveleyDerbyshireHascuil I Musard1086
Stoke TristerSomersetBretel St Clair1086
StyfordNorthumberlandWalter I de Bolbectemp. Henry I
SudeleyGloucestershireHarold de Sudeley1066
TarringtonHerefordshireAnsfrid de Cormeilles1086
TattershallLincolnshireEudo son of Spirewic1086
ThoreswayLincolnshireAlfred of Lincoln1086
TotnesDevonJuhel de Totnes1086
TrematonCornwallReginald I de Vautort (held from Count of Mortain)1086
WalkernHertfordshireDermantemp. Wm I
WallingfordBerkshireMilo Crispin1086
WarwickWarwickshireRobert de Beaumont, Count of Meulan1086
Weedon Pinkeny/LoisNorthamptonshireGhilo I de Pinkeny1086
WemShropshireWilliam Pantulf (held from Roger, Earl of Montgomery)temp. Wm II
WeobleyHerefordshireWalter de Lacytemp. Wm I
West DeanWiltshireWaleran the Huntsman1086
West GreenwichKentGilbert de Maminot, Bp. of Lisieux (held from Odo Bp. of Bayeux)1086
WhitchurchBuckinghamshireHugh I de Bolbec1086
WigmoreHerefordshireWilliam FitzOsberntemp. Wm I
Winterbourne St MartinDorsetwidow of Hugh FitzGrip1086
WolvertonBuckinghamshireManno le Breton1086
WormegayNorfolkHermer de Ferrers1086
WrittleEssexIsabel, sister & co-heir of John the Scot, Earl of Chester1241

Source: Sanders (1960)

Probable baronies

Name of baronyCounty of caputFirst known tenantEarliest record
AlnwickNorthumberland Ivo de Vesci 11th century
ApplebyWestmorland Robert I de Vipont 1203/4
BarnstapleDevonGeoffrey de Mowbray1086
Barony of PortKentHugh de Port1086
Barony de RosKentGeoffrey I de Ros1086
BeanleyNorthumberlandGospatric, Earl of Dunbartemp. Henry I(1100–1135)
Berry Pomeroy[13]DevonRalph de Pomeroy1086
BothalNorthumberlandRichard I Bertrampre.1162
BourneLincolnshireWilliam de Rollos1100–1130
BramberSussexWilliam I de Braose1086
CallertonNorthumberlandHubert de la Val11th century
CardinhamCornwallRichard FitzTuroldtemp. William I(1066–1087)
ChepstowMonmouthshireWilliam FitzOsbern, 1st Earl of Herefordpre.1070
ChilhamKentFulbert I de Dover1086[14]
ChitterneWiltshireEdward of Salisbury1086
ChristchurchHampshireRichard de Reviers1100–1107
ClunShropshireRobert "Picot de Say"1086
DudleyWorcestershireWilliam FitzAnsculf1086
DunsterSomersetWilliam I de Mohun1086
DursleyGloucestershireRoger I de Berkeley1086
EgremontCumberlandWilliam Meschintemp. Henry I(1100–1135)
Elston-in-Orcheston St GeorgeWiltshireOsbern Giffard1086
EtonBuckinghamshire[lower-alpha 3]Walter FitzOther1086
FlamsteadHertfordshireRalph I de Tony1086
FotheringayNorthamptonshireWaltheof son of Siward, Earl of Huntingdon and Northamptonpre-1086
HadstoneNorthumberlandAschantinus de Worcestertemp. Henry I(1100–1135)
HastingsSussexWilliam, Count of Eu1086
Hatfield PeverelEssexRanulph Peverel1086
HaughleySuffolkHugh de Montfort1086
Helions BumpsteadEssexTihel1086
HorsleyDerbyshireRalph de Burun1086
IrthingtonCumberlandRanulph le Meschinc. 1100
KeevilWiltshireErnulph de Hesdingpre.1091
KempsfordGloucestershireErnulf I de Hesding11th/12th centuries
LancasterLancashireRoger the Poitevintemp. W I
LangleyNorthumberlandAdam I de Tindale1165
LavendonBuckinghamshireBishop of Coutances1086
LewesSussexWilliam I de Warenne1086
Liddel StrengthCumberlandRanulph le Meschinpre. 1121
Little DunmowEssexRalph Bayard1086
Little EastonEssexWalter the Deacon1086
Manchester[15]LancashireAlbert de Gresletemp. William II
MitfordNorthumberlandJohnpre temp. Henry I
Odcombe[lower-alpha 4]SomersetAnsgar I Brito1086
Old WardonBedfordshireWilliam Espec1086
PapcastleCumberlandWaldevetemp. Henry I
Patricksbourne[lower-alpha 5]KentRichard FitzWilliam1086
PeakSussexWilliam I Peverel1086
PevenseySussexGilbert I de l'Aigle1106–1114
PlymptonDevonRichard I de Reviers1087–1107
PontefractYorkshireIlbert I de Lacy1086
RayleighEssexSwain of Essex1086
RayneEssexRoger de Raimes1086
RichmondYorkshireAlan I, Count of Brittany1086
RothersthorpeNorthamptonshireGunfrid de Cioches1086
SkiptonYorkshireRobert de Rumillytemp. William II
StogurseySomersetWilliam de Falaise1086
SwanscombeKentHelte[lower-alpha 6]1086
TamworthNottinghamshireRobert Dispensator1086
Tarrant KeynstonDorsetRalph de KainesTemp. Henry I
ThirskYorkshireRobert de Mowbraypre-1095
TickhillYorkshireRoger de Busli1086
TopcliffeYorkshireWilliam I de Percy1086
TutburyStaffordshireHenry de Ferrers1086
WarkNorthumberlandWalter Espectemp. Henry I (1100–1135)
WarterYorkshireGeoffrey FitzPainc. 1101
WhaltonNorthumberlandWalter FitzWilliampre-1161
WithamEssexEustace II, Count of Boulogne1086
Wrinstead[lower-alpha 7]KentWilliam Peverelpost 1088

Source, unless otherwise stated: Sanders (1960), pp. 103–151

See also


  1. The survey in fact covered all the king's tenants-in-chief, not just those who held per baroniam, which adds much uncertainty as to the exact meaning of the term "baron".
  2. Chiselborough held from Robert Count of Mortain
  3. Now in Berkshire
  4. Odcombe held from Count of Mortain 1086
  5. Patricksbourne held from Odo of Bayeux 1086
  6. Held from the Bishop of Bayeux
  7. Wrinstead: now represented by Wrinstead Court, c. 11 miles NW of Ashford, Kent


  1. Sanders (1960), p.138, refers to the "Lord" of Halton being the hereditary constable of the County Palatine of Chester, and omits Halton from both his lists.
  2. 1 2 Sanders (1960), p.68
  3. Passage on servitium debitum based on Douglas (1959), p.894
  4. Douglas (1959), p.915
  5. Roskell, J.S. History of Parliament, House of Commons 1386–1421, Stroud, 1992, vol.1, p.751, Constituencies, Cinque Ports
  6. 1 2 3 Sanders (1960), preface, v.
  7. Manorial Law, A W & C Barsby 1996
  8. Sanders (1960), p.56-7 Barony of Kendal; p.103-4 probable Barony of Appleby (Westmorland)
  9. The caput of this Barony of Gloucester is uncertain (Sanders, p.6)
  10. English, B., The Lords of Holderness, 1086–1260: A Study in Feudal Society, Oxford, 1979
  11. Poulett, Scrope G., The History of the Manor and Ancient Barony of Castle Combe in the County of Wiltshire, privately printed, 1852
  12. Batten, J. The Barony of Beauchamp of Somerset, in: Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 36(1891), pp.20–59
  13. Powley, E.B. The House of De La Pomerai, Liverpool, 1944
  14. Hasted, Edward (1798). "Parishes". The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent. Institute of Historical Research. 6: 386–393. Retrieved 28 February 2014.
  15. Manchester was held of the Honour of Lancaster, per Sanders (1960), p.130, note 8, therefore possibly more properly a barony within a County Palatine


Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 10/27/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.